To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

lower echelon deans and de-partment heads.
CopÄ i‘»n’ j a
received
1970
ricin*
-ulty reface from »this
r tthe id p°licy
^hthat teachers
i^îe tenure if diss'-
K>“ps- „
* pean tn academic 10rfd ¡rectors, fhe aid “ ut the exist-t lives then.
«fe»the a*"*”8
letter we« »” 10
tant
urrtr
Voi. 46 No. 7
Tuesday, October 6, 1970
rrrusñw
TO
library
say that such responsibility by the Board is “understandable in view of the national pattern in which tenured faculty have openly supported, or led, various student (and non-student) elements in acts
pe
i progrom
ixiety
nd «"'I
tiijn“at ^°Ur “Concerned Faculty and Admin-
a nts
in h l )nv^nced the students to give up their po-
n,s,faothT ofvir/S their efforts alone that kept this campus 121 yeors »1 «V Violence.
ne;:::;fc year Will be different. No “Concerned
;:«;,°44 mStfturinisiration”wil1 be presen\to help
itutinn tltutlon from violence — something an Br never mute recovers from.
openly request that Dr. Armin
ty in con«" iiuiiop np '
oss will bec°pi1Xhe Carifr qUlte recovers from.
—♦icipo,i0* J)p( ^ ’ ‘ ies openly request that Dr. Armin PtcOI',idi j, D(at ” Louis McQuitty, Dean Richard Dande-
.art
kept
!qu|r.me^ |^aean Paul Salter, Col. Richard Banks, and Prof. f15 of Ti-an’ as WeU as a representative from the
eek pr'ah4the «.,iStees and the President’s office, come be-
r1:;;. °fthe iPtefnts and the facuity *n an °pen discus"
9uqh Friday- These« ter.at the earliest possible date.
Eullv I henf^emen will be contacted today and «a mepe tbe Plication of Friday’s Hurricane, ^»iversit'11^ may arranged and announced to
ifeiouohC°mmui1ity fn tflat fssue-stees offh- ab authority lies with the Board of 1 rig^ t ls /nstitution, they have never exercised k has rp° re^ecf feoure when an academic depart-|lfthe quested that one of its members be ten-and ¡^tuadze this power the loss of academic e first amendment is at stake.
.d dead
of disruption, violence and destruction — including bombing and looting.”
The letter was re-issued on June 30 by Louis McQuittv Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and distributed
peacemaker: IjicernedFaculty o Longer Exists
Bv ROCKY WALTERS
Former Member of Concerned Faculty
J , need some channel with which to reach We need a path through which their thoughts op'! through the ranks. tr0' ..¡,-ing we saw the formation of just such a i-a?: 51 path. As the campus neared vio-
lence, the “Concerned Faculty and Administration” came into being.
A number of the members of this group met two weeks ago to discuss the “tenure” letter. Because the vast majority of the group was untenured, they have chosen not to risk involvement in anything of a political nature this year.
They stated their continued ^ _ concern, yet they could not af-
\ to risk their being tenured by being more vocal.
I can easily sympathize with the dilemma. If they | t receive tenure, it would be a mark on their aca-
! ic record that could never be erased.
1 Yet if they were not tenured because of some po-
______al activity in a country that guarantees their right
” IIK1DCAI (political, the entire country, as well as the uni-ty, is the loser.
,tromuroiw fthey are not tenured because Of something trio, Buggsy,Jin: fcademic> when in fact politics plays -no part in iow playing to |claSs Presentations, then the university would --------pverting the American ideals of a democratic so-
uny Pintus isolie I
rricane office. Let’s consider what the university has lost with Tenure policy. The “Concerned Faculty and Ad-A'lthoui )heac*ration” saved this university from violence last
uld not be HieW;
y 9 JN'' affer fbe Kent State shootings, a request olive and wei®ade to Dr. Stanford to call a meeting of the en-^ campus. Pcuky — a request that he refused to honor. At joint the untenured faculty, with the help of The humcaneBof the tenured members of this institution, orga-o success!Rigmithe “Concerned Faculty and Administration.”
The organization adopted several resolutions, all . school stottsgJch were turned down by Dr. Stanford. But the 3m i goingtojiifoct that hundreds of faculty and administrators another desk? together in sympathy with Kent State was suffi-Br°wn: vov *° warrant caujng a caucus 0f the Faculty Sen-
jr own desK.n'Wy
: Really? Just »'J1,is meeting recommended that the university that sold me1’* “e strike until the following Monday morn-i~n ord reluctantly agreed to concur with their Becis^011^ s*-atan£ ^at he did not agree with
Pad the “Concerned Faculty and Administra-NIVERSIrXe?r met’ violence would have been assured, 3L ?.FTmr%iHpCm ^ Senate would never have convened, and H opF«5Bdh t?n^ord would have had the Ashe Building
je oppon^"jittanLthe *!°,ice 3t ten a-m< when he waS refused noortontdef j, f ’ rather than at four p.m. when the police v p* met arrive.
to deans and directors of that school. This letter, which was not for release to the general faculty, appears in its entirety below.
Those who received the
★ ★ ★
letter in the Arts and Sciences School were Richard Dandeneau, Associate Dean of the School; Paul S. Salter, Associate Dean, Richard Banks, research scientist for the school, and Prof. Jack
Kapchan, Professor of Psychology.
Although the letter is basically centered around the proceedure from granting tenure, it specifically spells out the Board’s role in deter-
mining the requirements for tenure.
In the past, the board served mainly as a “rubber stamp” which approved rec-comendations for tenure based on the scrutiny of
But the letter indicate« that the board intends to ex* amine more closely, future candidates for tenure, and will perhaps even reject some on the basis of their involvement in student dissent.
The letter ends by saying that if the Board did not carry out such a policy, “The result would be the chaos which the avowed enemies of higher education and participatory democracy are so actively striving for.”
Few faculty members are aware of the actual letter but most know of the policy of the Board in suoh tenure cases.
Editorial Opinion
Here9s Tenure Letter
UNIVERSITY OP MIAMI - Coral Gables, Florida College of Art» and Sciences
June 30, 1970
POLICY BULLETIN No. pfi-7Q
The Chairmen and Directors, College of Arts and Sciences From: Louis L. McQuitty, Dean
» 9
Subject: Award of Tenure
The following memorandum from the Dean of Faculties to Academic Deans and Directors (dated June 10, 1970) is quoted for your information and compliance:
Recent actions by the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees (May 29) and the Board of Trustees (June 9) has made it quite clear that the Board, and the Board alone, can grant -(or award) tenure. No officer or member of the University, is authorized (and therefore will not be permitted) to award tenure. Furthermore no statement can be made about tenure being awarded by any individual until after either the Executive Committee, or the Board has acted favorably on the recommendation.
This clarification of the policy, and the responsibility, of the Board of Trustees applies to both types:
1. A new faculty member who being employed in the rank of full professor is thereby eligible for the "immediate" award of tenure.
2. An "old" faculty member who has been recommended by his
division or department, and then by the appropriate school or college, for the receipt of tenure either immediately or one year hence. ,
Each recommendation for tenure should, therefore, be accompanied by the required actions of the faculty charter as well as. by supportive statements from the appropriate Deans, Directors, and Department Chairmen. A vita must also be included.
This reiteration of the responsibility of the Board in the award of tenure is most understandable in view of the national pattern in which tenured faculty have openly supported, or led, various student (and non-student) elements in-acts of disruption, violence and destruction — -including arson, bombing, and looting. It must be noted, in this context, that a Board of Trustees (or Regents) is legally responsible for the operation of the institution, including the safety of the individuals (students, faculty, administrators, and staff.) It would be a sorry day indeed if the legal agency (the Board) would abdicate any, or all, of its responsibilities.
The result would be the chaos which the avowed enemies of higher education and participatory democracy are so actively striving for.
Paranoia Bore
j , '
Tenure Letter
Kg«
LIMcQ/kak
Dean Richard J. Dandeneau Dean Paul S. Salter Col. Richard G. Banks Prof. Jack A. Kapchan
★ ★ ★
Threatening Faculty Means End To Academic Freedom
idoy
Wain
's 'Cane
*<£0, nii
3ed enveCc 5 0 ,°^SIS todays educational system, see
QIf ^ .
íePage wins the first game of his career
r n ¡j
into'r*'n>,P Special Report on I BI investiga■
caniPus violence, see page 2
lrr>ent
4 Matusow
10 Santos 7 Sports
11 WVUM
12 Yasser
By JEFF WOLLMAN
Executive Board Member—Peace South
When an educational institution deliberately seeks to supress the ideologies of its educators, it subjugates the most basic principles of academic freedom. The discovery of the “tenure” letter has reinforced my own belief that policies of this nature degrade the concept of education to a state of impotence and irrelevency.
In my estimation, education is not just a matter of collecting grades, but an exchange of ideas, a platform for the examination of beliefs, and a forum for controversy.
It is the educator’s prerogative, indeed his obligation, to free himself from the limitations of the classroom and to accept the responsibility of guiding and supporting the student in his search for knowledge and truth.
If we allow the administration to divorce the educator from this freedom, we deny ourselves the opportunity to gain a degree of insight which he alone has to offer us in pursuits outside the established curriculum.
Those members of the faculty who support or aid students in the expression of their dissatisfaction and frustration should not be subject to censorship or punishment.
This threat to the untenured faculty is a baseless overreaction and a paranoid assumption. . .
The board of trustees is within its legal rights to award tenure. But what relevance do they have in making this decision over the opinions of students and faculty peers?
Shall our educators be judged by their skill as educators or by their political beliefs and the degree of involvement which the board of trustees
considers improper?
As I see it, the only “avowed enemies of higher education and participatory democracy” are those who ac-
cept and put credence in this policy. These hypocrites would withold from untenured faculty, those basic rights which they supposedly wish to perpetuate.
They would accomplish this by refusing tenure to any faculty member who, in their estimation, poses a threat to the safety of the university community.
The flaw here lies in the fact that there is no system of checks and balances to control the interjection of the board’s political beliefs and their social pressures into this value judgement.
Tenure, by its nature, tends to immunize faculty from social and politi-
Continued on Page 4
By JERRY HART
Editor
■It’s evident that a high degree of insecurity and paranoia has developed in the ranks of UM’s administrators. That’s easy to see after the tenure letter that was issued this summer.
For one thing, it clearly shows that someone up there is worried about the rumblings of dissatisfaction arising from UM’s student body. It also shows that we can expect tougher, harsher action in retaliation for those rumblings.
With rnetorical blunders and tongue-in-cheek implication, the Board has constructed a paradox with which it hopes to keep things running smoothly.
In its outrageous letter, the Board warned faculty members who are seeking tenure, not to participate in acts of student dissent.
The Board claims in the letter that this action is in line with its responsibility in preventing “ . . . the chaos which the avowed enemies of higher education and participatory democracy are so actively striving for.”
Yet, how worse an avowed enemy can participatory democracy have than one which would limit the expression of ideas, as the tenure policy of the Board does?
It would be interesting to see from which dictionary the Board got its definition j of tenure.
1 The very nature of tenure is to allow a faculty member to function freely in the educational process of free expression without feat of losing his job.
How then, can the Board rationalize limiting that very expression for the sake of acquiring tenure?
If any Board member who participated in the production of the tenure document has that rationalization, then he should justify it before the faculty and students who are affected by it.
Therefore, the Hurricane will today take the following steps toward getting this matter into the public attention:
• Members of the Board will be asked to speak at an open forum before faculty and students.
• Other faculty and administrators who will be responsible for effecting the tenure policy will be asked to attend also.
• Officials of the
★ ★ ★
Will They Appear?
Louis McQuitty
Armin Gropp
These two men, along with other key administrators and members of the Board of Trustees will be asked today to appear before students to explain the tenure policy. Read Friday’s Hurricane to see if they will accept the invitation.
--------------- ★ ★ ★ 1
American Association of University Professors will be contacted and asked to attend.
0 Miami’s major news media will be contacted and given a full account of the Board’s action and will also be invlied to the forum.
Arrangements for the forum will be made today and tomorrow, and details about time and place will be published in Friday’s Hurricane.
The names of those persons who refuse to attend the forum, along with their reasons for not attending will also be printed and released to the news media.
But this action is not directed at the Board alone. Those faculty members who found enough courage to speak out during the demonstrations last year must tax themselves doubly and speak out now.
You cannot lose all that has been gained. If the concerned faculty is to be heard again, you must not let this coersion pass unnoticed.
Because the concerned faculty lent a sense of sanity and organization to a panic-stricken Faculty Senate and an over-pressured administration during the Kent State demonstrations, you must be heard.
Because no faction was more significant in preventing violent confrontation on this campus last year than the Concerned Faculty and Administration, you must speak now.
The Board has cast itself and the Administration adrift on a hostile sea, and its only communicative link with the student masses, a concerned faculty, is now gone. With it could go the only excuse for non-violence.
Hearings Set For
Academic
By JOHN REILLY
Of The Hurricane Staff
The second of a series of open hearings being conducted by the Commission on Academic Goals will be held tomorrow night in the Flamingo Ballroom. The topic will be: UM and the Community.
“I am not disappointed by the turnout at the first hearing,” Dr. Sidney L. Besvinick, chairman of the committee said. “We will go on with the hearings no matter how large or small the crowds. People have got to have the opportunity to air their views
Discipline Policy Evaluated
By ELIZABETH OSTROFF
Assistant News Editor
A committee charged with evaluating the major discipline section of the new Disciplinary Procedure Code has been formed.
“This entails a review of student opinion concerning major gripes,” committee chairman Reid Brown said.
The committee is currently drawing up a list of changes and recommendations which will be presented to USG council for ratification October 5.
If USG ratifies the changes, they would be submitted to the administration “hopefully to be incorporated into the major disciplinary code.”
Tomorrow the committee will conduct open hearings at which all UM stu-
dents are invited to present their views.
“We’d like to urge all students who have something to say to come and say it,” Brown said. “This hearing is our line to the student body — as other than that, we only know what the committee members think.”
1
Brown emphasized that constructive criticism is needed — not simply destructive criticism.
“You’ve got to offer constructive change — an alternative,” Brown said.
The most prominent item of student discontent has thus far been the president’s power to suspend a student on the spot without the student being immediately charged with any offense.
“We hope to come up with a solution which will take the place of what’s there now,” Brown said.
about the University and we give them that chance.”
Topics to be discussed at the hearing include:
0 What academic services should UM provide for the community.
0 To what extent should UM use community facilities and programs for the advancement of UM’s academic growth.
0 Should UM compete with other educational agencies in the community in the academic services UM offers.
0 What is the academic impact of groups such as SUMMON on UM.
0 How extensive should UM be in the offering of community participation courses.
“Blacks, the SUMMON people and other groups should be vitally concerned with this hearing,” Besvinick said. “It will cover many areas that they are interested in.”
Appearing before the commission tomorrow night will be Dean Robert Allen of the School of Continuing Education and Norman Manassa head of SUMMON.
Besvinick said he would like to see a good crowd at the next meeting but that was not the important thin*.
“What is important is not how man” people are present but what the people present have to say,” Besvinick said.
The hearing will be from 7:30 to 10:30 p.m. All students, faculty, and administrators are urged to attend.
Y

lower echelon deans and de-partment heads.
CopÄ i‘»n’ j a
received
1970
ricin*
-ulty reface from »this
r tthe id p°licy
^hthat teachers
i^îe tenure if diss'-
K>“ps- „
* pean tn academic 10rfd ¡rectors, fhe aid “ ut the exist-t lives then.
«fe»the a*"*”8
letter we« »” 10
tant
urrtr
Voi. 46 No. 7
Tuesday, October 6, 1970
rrrusñw
TO
library
say that such responsibility by the Board is “understandable in view of the national pattern in which tenured faculty have openly supported, or led, various student (and non-student) elements in acts
pe
i progrom
ixiety
nd «"'I
tiijn“at ^°Ur “Concerned Faculty and Admin-
a nts
in h l )nv^nced the students to give up their po-
n,s,faothT ofvir/S their efforts alone that kept this campus 121 yeors »1 «V Violence.
ne;:::;fc year Will be different. No “Concerned
;:«;,°44 mStfturinisiration”wil1 be presen\to help
itutinn tltutlon from violence — something an Br never mute recovers from.
openly request that Dr. Armin
ty in con«" iiuiiop np '
oss will bec°pi1Xhe Carifr qUlte recovers from.
—♦icipo,i0* J)p( ^ ’ ‘ ies openly request that Dr. Armin PtcOI',idi j, D(at ” Louis McQuitty, Dean Richard Dande-
.art
kept
!qu|r.me^ |^aean Paul Salter, Col. Richard Banks, and Prof. f15 of Ti-an’ as WeU as a representative from the
eek pr'ah4the «.,iStees and the President’s office, come be-
r1:;;. °fthe iPtefnts and the facuity *n an °pen discus"
9uqh Friday- These« ter.at the earliest possible date.
Eullv I henf^emen will be contacted today and «a mepe tbe Plication of Friday’s Hurricane, ^»iversit'11^ may arranged and announced to
ifeiouohC°mmui1ity fn tflat fssue-stees offh- ab authority lies with the Board of 1 rig^ t ls /nstitution, they have never exercised k has rp° re^ecf feoure when an academic depart-|lfthe quested that one of its members be ten-and ¡^tuadze this power the loss of academic e first amendment is at stake.
.d dead
of disruption, violence and destruction — including bombing and looting.”
The letter was re-issued on June 30 by Louis McQuittv Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and distributed
peacemaker: IjicernedFaculty o Longer Exists
Bv ROCKY WALTERS
Former Member of Concerned Faculty
J , need some channel with which to reach We need a path through which their thoughts op'! through the ranks. tr0' ..¡,-ing we saw the formation of just such a i-a?: 51 path. As the campus neared vio-
lence, the “Concerned Faculty and Administration” came into being.
A number of the members of this group met two weeks ago to discuss the “tenure” letter. Because the vast majority of the group was untenured, they have chosen not to risk involvement in anything of a political nature this year.
They stated their continued ^ _ concern, yet they could not af-
\ to risk their being tenured by being more vocal.
I can easily sympathize with the dilemma. If they | t receive tenure, it would be a mark on their aca-
! ic record that could never be erased.
1 Yet if they were not tenured because of some po-
______al activity in a country that guarantees their right
” IIK1DCAI (political, the entire country, as well as the uni-ty, is the loser.
,tromuroiw fthey are not tenured because Of something trio, Buggsy,Jin: fcademic> when in fact politics plays -no part in iow playing to |claSs Presentations, then the university would --------pverting the American ideals of a democratic so-
uny Pintus isolie I
rricane office. Let’s consider what the university has lost with Tenure policy. The “Concerned Faculty and Ad-A'lthoui )heac*ration” saved this university from violence last
uld not be HieW;
y 9 JN'' affer fbe Kent State shootings, a request olive and wei®ade to Dr. Stanford to call a meeting of the en-^ campus. Pcuky — a request that he refused to honor. At joint the untenured faculty, with the help of The humcaneBof the tenured members of this institution, orga-o success!Rigmithe “Concerned Faculty and Administration.”
The organization adopted several resolutions, all . school stottsgJch were turned down by Dr. Stanford. But the 3m i goingtojiifoct that hundreds of faculty and administrators another desk? together in sympathy with Kent State was suffi-Br°wn: vov *° warrant caujng a caucus 0f the Faculty Sen-
jr own desK.n'Wy
: Really? Just »'J1,is meeting recommended that the university that sold me1’* “e strike until the following Monday morn-i~n ord reluctantly agreed to concur with their Becis^011^ s*-atan£ ^at he did not agree with
Pad the “Concerned Faculty and Administra-NIVERSIrXe?r met’ violence would have been assured, 3L ?.FTmr%iHpCm ^ Senate would never have convened, and H opF«5Bdh t?n^ord would have had the Ashe Building
je oppon^"jittanLthe *!°,ice 3t ten a-m< when he waS refused noortontdef j, f ’ rather than at four p.m. when the police v p* met arrive.
to deans and directors of that school. This letter, which was not for release to the general faculty, appears in its entirety below.
Those who received the
★ ★ ★
letter in the Arts and Sciences School were Richard Dandeneau, Associate Dean of the School; Paul S. Salter, Associate Dean, Richard Banks, research scientist for the school, and Prof. Jack
Kapchan, Professor of Psychology.
Although the letter is basically centered around the proceedure from granting tenure, it specifically spells out the Board’s role in deter-
mining the requirements for tenure.
In the past, the board served mainly as a “rubber stamp” which approved rec-comendations for tenure based on the scrutiny of
But the letter indicate« that the board intends to ex* amine more closely, future candidates for tenure, and will perhaps even reject some on the basis of their involvement in student dissent.
The letter ends by saying that if the Board did not carry out such a policy, “The result would be the chaos which the avowed enemies of higher education and participatory democracy are so actively striving for.”
Few faculty members are aware of the actual letter but most know of the policy of the Board in suoh tenure cases.
Editorial Opinion
Here9s Tenure Letter
UNIVERSITY OP MIAMI - Coral Gables, Florida College of Art» and Sciences
June 30, 1970
POLICY BULLETIN No. pfi-7Q
The Chairmen and Directors, College of Arts and Sciences From: Louis L. McQuitty, Dean
» 9
Subject: Award of Tenure
The following memorandum from the Dean of Faculties to Academic Deans and Directors (dated June 10, 1970) is quoted for your information and compliance:
Recent actions by the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees (May 29) and the Board of Trustees (June 9) has made it quite clear that the Board, and the Board alone, can grant -(or award) tenure. No officer or member of the University, is authorized (and therefore will not be permitted) to award tenure. Furthermore no statement can be made about tenure being awarded by any individual until after either the Executive Committee, or the Board has acted favorably on the recommendation.
This clarification of the policy, and the responsibility, of the Board of Trustees applies to both types:
1. A new faculty member who being employed in the rank of full professor is thereby eligible for the "immediate" award of tenure.
2. An "old" faculty member who has been recommended by his
division or department, and then by the appropriate school or college, for the receipt of tenure either immediately or one year hence. ,
Each recommendation for tenure should, therefore, be accompanied by the required actions of the faculty charter as well as. by supportive statements from the appropriate Deans, Directors, and Department Chairmen. A vita must also be included.
This reiteration of the responsibility of the Board in the award of tenure is most understandable in view of the national pattern in which tenured faculty have openly supported, or led, various student (and non-student) elements in-acts of disruption, violence and destruction — -including arson, bombing, and looting. It must be noted, in this context, that a Board of Trustees (or Regents) is legally responsible for the operation of the institution, including the safety of the individuals (students, faculty, administrators, and staff.) It would be a sorry day indeed if the legal agency (the Board) would abdicate any, or all, of its responsibilities.
The result would be the chaos which the avowed enemies of higher education and participatory democracy are so actively striving for.
Paranoia Bore
j , '
Tenure Letter
Kg«
LIMcQ/kak
Dean Richard J. Dandeneau Dean Paul S. Salter Col. Richard G. Banks Prof. Jack A. Kapchan
★ ★ ★
Threatening Faculty Means End To Academic Freedom
idoy
Wain
's 'Cane
*,P Special Report on I BI investiga■
caniPus violence, see page 2
lrr>ent
4 Matusow
10 Santos 7 Sports
11 WVUM
12 Yasser
By JEFF WOLLMAN
Executive Board Member—Peace South
When an educational institution deliberately seeks to supress the ideologies of its educators, it subjugates the most basic principles of academic freedom. The discovery of the “tenure” letter has reinforced my own belief that policies of this nature degrade the concept of education to a state of impotence and irrelevency.
In my estimation, education is not just a matter of collecting grades, but an exchange of ideas, a platform for the examination of beliefs, and a forum for controversy.
It is the educator’s prerogative, indeed his obligation, to free himself from the limitations of the classroom and to accept the responsibility of guiding and supporting the student in his search for knowledge and truth.
If we allow the administration to divorce the educator from this freedom, we deny ourselves the opportunity to gain a degree of insight which he alone has to offer us in pursuits outside the established curriculum.
Those members of the faculty who support or aid students in the expression of their dissatisfaction and frustration should not be subject to censorship or punishment.
This threat to the untenured faculty is a baseless overreaction and a paranoid assumption. . .
The board of trustees is within its legal rights to award tenure. But what relevance do they have in making this decision over the opinions of students and faculty peers?
Shall our educators be judged by their skill as educators or by their political beliefs and the degree of involvement which the board of trustees
considers improper?
As I see it, the only “avowed enemies of higher education and participatory democracy” are those who ac-
cept and put credence in this policy. These hypocrites would withold from untenured faculty, those basic rights which they supposedly wish to perpetuate.
They would accomplish this by refusing tenure to any faculty member who, in their estimation, poses a threat to the safety of the university community.
The flaw here lies in the fact that there is no system of checks and balances to control the interjection of the board’s political beliefs and their social pressures into this value judgement.
Tenure, by its nature, tends to immunize faculty from social and politi-
Continued on Page 4
By JERRY HART
Editor
■It’s evident that a high degree of insecurity and paranoia has developed in the ranks of UM’s administrators. That’s easy to see after the tenure letter that was issued this summer.
For one thing, it clearly shows that someone up there is worried about the rumblings of dissatisfaction arising from UM’s student body. It also shows that we can expect tougher, harsher action in retaliation for those rumblings.
With rnetorical blunders and tongue-in-cheek implication, the Board has constructed a paradox with which it hopes to keep things running smoothly.
In its outrageous letter, the Board warned faculty members who are seeking tenure, not to participate in acts of student dissent.
The Board claims in the letter that this action is in line with its responsibility in preventing “ . . . the chaos which the avowed enemies of higher education and participatory democracy are so actively striving for.”
Yet, how worse an avowed enemy can participatory democracy have than one which would limit the expression of ideas, as the tenure policy of the Board does?
It would be interesting to see from which dictionary the Board got its definition j of tenure.
1 The very nature of tenure is to allow a faculty member to function freely in the educational process of free expression without feat of losing his job.
How then, can the Board rationalize limiting that very expression for the sake of acquiring tenure?
If any Board member who participated in the production of the tenure document has that rationalization, then he should justify it before the faculty and students who are affected by it.
Therefore, the Hurricane will today take the following steps toward getting this matter into the public attention:
• Members of the Board will be asked to speak at an open forum before faculty and students.
• Other faculty and administrators who will be responsible for effecting the tenure policy will be asked to attend also.
• Officials of the
★ ★ ★
Will They Appear?
Louis McQuitty
Armin Gropp
These two men, along with other key administrators and members of the Board of Trustees will be asked today to appear before students to explain the tenure policy. Read Friday’s Hurricane to see if they will accept the invitation.
--------------- ★ ★ ★ 1
American Association of University Professors will be contacted and asked to attend.
0 Miami’s major news media will be contacted and given a full account of the Board’s action and will also be invlied to the forum.
Arrangements for the forum will be made today and tomorrow, and details about time and place will be published in Friday’s Hurricane.
The names of those persons who refuse to attend the forum, along with their reasons for not attending will also be printed and released to the news media.
But this action is not directed at the Board alone. Those faculty members who found enough courage to speak out during the demonstrations last year must tax themselves doubly and speak out now.
You cannot lose all that has been gained. If the concerned faculty is to be heard again, you must not let this coersion pass unnoticed.
Because the concerned faculty lent a sense of sanity and organization to a panic-stricken Faculty Senate and an over-pressured administration during the Kent State demonstrations, you must be heard.
Because no faction was more significant in preventing violent confrontation on this campus last year than the Concerned Faculty and Administration, you must speak now.
The Board has cast itself and the Administration adrift on a hostile sea, and its only communicative link with the student masses, a concerned faculty, is now gone. With it could go the only excuse for non-violence.
Hearings Set For
Academic
By JOHN REILLY
Of The Hurricane Staff
The second of a series of open hearings being conducted by the Commission on Academic Goals will be held tomorrow night in the Flamingo Ballroom. The topic will be: UM and the Community.
“I am not disappointed by the turnout at the first hearing,” Dr. Sidney L. Besvinick, chairman of the committee said. “We will go on with the hearings no matter how large or small the crowds. People have got to have the opportunity to air their views
Discipline Policy Evaluated
By ELIZABETH OSTROFF
Assistant News Editor
A committee charged with evaluating the major discipline section of the new Disciplinary Procedure Code has been formed.
“This entails a review of student opinion concerning major gripes,” committee chairman Reid Brown said.
The committee is currently drawing up a list of changes and recommendations which will be presented to USG council for ratification October 5.
If USG ratifies the changes, they would be submitted to the administration “hopefully to be incorporated into the major disciplinary code.”
Tomorrow the committee will conduct open hearings at which all UM stu-
dents are invited to present their views.
“We’d like to urge all students who have something to say to come and say it,” Brown said. “This hearing is our line to the student body — as other than that, we only know what the committee members think.”
1
Brown emphasized that constructive criticism is needed — not simply destructive criticism.
“You’ve got to offer constructive change — an alternative,” Brown said.
The most prominent item of student discontent has thus far been the president’s power to suspend a student on the spot without the student being immediately charged with any offense.
“We hope to come up with a solution which will take the place of what’s there now,” Brown said.
about the University and we give them that chance.”
Topics to be discussed at the hearing include:
0 What academic services should UM provide for the community.
0 To what extent should UM use community facilities and programs for the advancement of UM’s academic growth.
0 Should UM compete with other educational agencies in the community in the academic services UM offers.
0 What is the academic impact of groups such as SUMMON on UM.
0 How extensive should UM be in the offering of community participation courses.
“Blacks, the SUMMON people and other groups should be vitally concerned with this hearing,” Besvinick said. “It will cover many areas that they are interested in.”
Appearing before the commission tomorrow night will be Dean Robert Allen of the School of Continuing Education and Norman Manassa head of SUMMON.
Besvinick said he would like to see a good crowd at the next meeting but that was not the important thin*.
“What is important is not how man” people are present but what the people present have to say,” Besvinick said.
The hearing will be from 7:30 to 10:30 p.m. All students, faculty, and administrators are urged to attend.
Y